It's tempting to think that al Qaeda is a localized problem and, although a concern, not something that can seriously undermine our way of life. After all, if Israel can survive in the face of daily terrorist attacks, why can't this nation as well? That, apparently, is what the Spanish electorate decided earlier this year. And it is one of the arguments of Michael Moore's propaganda film "Fahrenheit 9/11." But the truth is that America does not have such a "luxury." America stands as a symbol to the world that a society based on liberty is indeed possible and, yes, preferable. Because of that, the threat we face goes far beyond the few attacks a collection of thugs could pull off. This is a battle over the future of liberty at home and abroad. This is something Osama bin Laden fully understands. In a video released Friday afternoon, bin Laden said that Americans would be free from terrorists attacks only once "our security" is assured. But America's very existence is a threat to his own security and the security of all those who perpetuate a culture of hate, oppression and death. [Emphasis added]

We know that not all Kerry voters are primarily voting against Bush; and we know some Bush voters would vote for Bush no matter what. But in my opinion this cartoon captures what is motivating the large majority of voters on both sides. For Bush voters, fighting terrorism is the priority; for Kerry voters, fighting Bush is the priority.

I voted for Bush last week. Regular readers know that I have little good to say about Kerry's proposed policies. They also know that I've been critical of Bush's halting, apologetic pursuit of the war on terror (our first cartoon on that subject was in November 2001).

But because Bush correctly identified state-sponsors of terrorism as a primary target, and then followed through with deposing two terror-sponsoring regimes, and because Kerry has offered no alternative except to pursue the war more multilaterally (that is, commit the same mistakes Bush has made but as a matter of principle), and worse still, because Kerry would treat terrorism as a fundamentally criminal enterprise rather than the war it is, Bush remains the only short-term hope of holding back if not stopping Islamist terrorists and theocrats who threaten American and her allies. If re-elected, it would remain to be seen if Bush would prosecute the war as it should be. But he's the only candidate to come close to pursuing the correct course.

Two recent editorials do a much better job than I could of explaining why Bush should be supported with qualifications. The first is by TIA Daily's Robert Tracinski: Anti-Bushites for Bush.

Kerry may not be the "perfect" candidate of the enemies of civilization -- but he is their candidate, nonetheless, and he must be defeated. Bush is far from being the perfect candidate for those who want a vigorous defense of civilization against murderous Islamic fanatics. But he is our candidate, such as he is, and he deserves our support. ... September 11 demonstrated that it is necessary to topple and destroy the Middle Eastern regimes that use terrorism as a weapon against the West -- the principle behind the Bush Doctrine. The administration has applied that doctrine to two regimes, and they deserve credit for it. But even that is not enough, over the long term. Even if our leaders applied the Bush doctrine consistently (against Iran and Syria, for example) and backed it up with the maximum force available, that would still leave the question: then what? What would prevent the re-emergence of new terrorist regimes to replace the old ones?

The only long-term answer is that the Arab and Muslim worlds must be civilized. They must have imposed on them a better system of government, one that allows, for the first time in the Arab world, the material vibrancy of a relatively free economy and the spiritual vibrancy of the free exchange of ideas. This would do exactly what the clashing examples of East Berlin and West Berlin did in the Cold War: it would provide an unanswerable demonstration of the benefits of a free society on one side, contrasted to misery and oppression on the other side. It is, in my view, the most important thing that can be done in the military and political realm to defeat the philosophy that animates Islamic terrorism. ...

The choice, in short, is this. George Bush is a candidate who stands for a vigorous projection of American power to reshape the political structure of the Middle East, destroying the political underpinnings of Islamic terrorism -- but whose execution of that goal is continually undercut by compromise and appeasement. John Kerry is a candidate who stands for American withdrawal and passivity -- for whom any expression of American strength would be an act of compromise and appeasement.

George W. Bush cannot be trusted to fight the war properly, but John Kerry can be trusted to retreat.

Also, from Harry Binswanger: Vote for President Bush.

The Bush doctrine, for all its timid, bumbling, and altruism-laced implementation, intends America to act, to use its military might offensively, even when half the world protests against it. Kerry's "instincts" are to negotiate, conciliate, and retreat. It has been clear from the beginning of this overly long campaign that Kerry's fixation on "working with allies" does not represent a concern with any practical benefit to be attained but is an expression of his anti-American, anti-war views -- views essentially unchanged from his anti-Vietnam War days. Contrary to some of his more recent statements, Kerry does not think that Iraq in particular was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time": he thinks any military self-assertion by America is wrong.

I agree with both authors' contention that Bush's religiosity is a concern but not one that trumps the war.

Hopefully whoever wins Nov. 2 will do so by a wide margin. I, for one, do not want this presidential election to drag on like the last one.

"In contrast, former Iranian foreign minister and exiled leader of the Iranian Freedom Movement opposition group Dr. Ibrahim Yazdi expressed his explicit support for Senator Kerry, saying that as president he would benefit Iran more. In an article in the reformist daily Sharq, Yazdi wrote that Bush was the Jews' "New Messiah" and that if he was reelected the U.S. would continue in its unilateral Middle East and Iranian policy. Bush, who would not be reelected again for a third term, would be able to implement his policy with greater determination, whereas if Kerry won the election, said Yazdi, he would seek cooperation with and consideration of the European Union countries, and even cooperation with Japan, China, and Russia. As a result of this policy of cooperation, the U.S. and Europe would change their policy in favor of Iran's nuclear program." [Sharq (Iran), September 11, 2004.]

All you need to know about Arafat was that he insisted on wearing a pistol when he addressed the UN General Assembly. And all you need to know about the UN, I suppose, is that they let him.

For anyone looking to defend property rights and make money at the same time, here's an interesting business model I discovered: 

The Tabloids, an Oakland-based rock band... recently launched stopnapster.com, urging people to sabotage Napster by mislabeling songs posted to the site. Music entrepreneurs and Internet saboteurs have already started circulating fake versions of popular songs on Napster. 

Stopnapster.com also calls for releasing songs into Napster that have anti-piracy speeches inserted randomly into the music. For instance, you may be listening to Eminem when suddenly Charlton Heston begins reading a public interest message opposing song theft...  "We're looking at the big picture here. Intellectual property is intellectual freedom," says Michael Robinson, the band's leader, a freelance writer and a marketing consultant. "The U.S. Constitution and the Internet are on a collision course. We don't want our rights ripped off," he adds. The Tabloids seek government regulation of technologies like Napster's.  (From Digital Music Weekly,

You could probably get this funded as an Internet business model. Get permission from bands to use their songs, and thirty seconds in start mixing in voiceovers of interviews with the band, etc. Then create all kinds of bogus music servers and spam the hell out of Napster, Gnutella, etc. with the fake mp3s. (Actually, I hear the Nettwerk label just did this with the new Barenaked Ladies single.) 

The band gets advertising and fights theft, you make a little money selling the ads, and the Net gets clogged with so much music spam that it gets difficult and costly to find intact pirated tracks. If Napster raises technical barriers, you have a financial incentive to overcome them. And the pirates can't very well call on the law to protect them, can they? 

Personally, I find something deliciously satisfying in the image of some young thug, smugly expecting to marinate his brain in the latest Eminem tirade he's swiped off the net, getting an earful of Charlton Heston. [Spamming for Freedom, July 4, 2004]

The music industry may finally be winning its game of music piracy whack-a-mole, thanks to the use of increasingly effective technological hammers....And while the RIAA has been smacking downloaders with lawsuits, individual record labels have contracted technological mercenaries to make using the peer-to-peer networks where people go to illegally download music more difficult.

"The whole idea is to increase the frustration and take away the fun quotient of these networks," said an executive from one company that provides such services, Marc Morgenstern. His company, Overpeer, protects 70,000 music, video, and software titles from piracy by flooding the most popular networks — Kazaa, Grokster, and eDonkey, among others — with thousands of garbage data files bearing the titles of popular songs. The decoys appear at the top of user searches for the title. On searches for the most popular songs, fake files sometimes constitute 95% of the results. ["Music Industry Foils Pirates By Seeding Networks With Fake Files", NYSun]

Judging from opinion polls, media reports and conversation on this side of the Atlantic, the overwhelming sentiment on what would be bad for Europe is another four years with President George W. Bush. In Britain, France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands, Europeans appear to be united by an overwhelming antipathy toward Bush. ... European media are sending correspondents all over the United States in an effort to delve into the American psyche. "We want to understand why so many people are still on Bush's side; it's a kind of mystery to us," said Peter Frey, Berlin bureau chief for ZDF television in Germany. "We are asking the American people, 'Why are you voting for Bush?' We want to understand why he has this support." ...

For many Europeans, it is not what Kerry would do as president that matters, it is the way they think he would do it.

"The fact that Kerry has an attitude in which he feels he wants to consult the allies and is less arrogant in his relationship with allies, puts him in a much more positive light here," said Nathalie La Balme, program officer at the Paris office of the German Marshall Fund. "I don't know whether if Kerry gets elected anything will change. But in terms of attitude and perception and words, it would make a big difference."